Thanks Bijan,
Yes, that was me. What I was actually saying (JANNE: I didn't see this get
into the IRC record; would you mind amending it?) was that I'd like to see a
formal addition to the Use Cases document if we're going to consider this.
My understanding (please anybody, correct me if I'm wrong) was that anything
considered sufficiently important to become part of the official
specification needs to be motivated by a formal use case first. Is that not
so?
Howard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:28 AM
> To: DAWG Mailing List
> Subject: Use cases for XML serialization
>
>
>
> For Howard(?), I restate (I hope concisely) some use cases for XML
> Serialization:
>
> 1) I think for a good WSDL for SPARQL, having an XML Schema type for
> specifying the input and output messages in the abstract interface is
> highly desirable. This generates, as a side effect, and XML
> serialization.
>
> 2) I think for actual bodies of SOAP messages, XML is preferable. I
> guess, in general, embedding XML in XML formats is better than
> embedding strings in other formats. Especially if validatable.
>
> 3) I was already generating a XML format in order to support legacy
> applications with say, RDQL, Versa, and SeRQL services. I prefer
> generating XML from a SPARQL query, and using XSLT or XQuery to
> generate RDQL or other query languages.
>
> 4) Having schema (which entails XML serialization) allows us to express
> what parts of the query language a server does or does not support for
> various datasets (or all of them). So I can, I believe, restrict the
> query to only allow select queries if I don't support ask, describe, or
> construct *without* the working group having to define any conformance
> levels.
>
> There are others, but I hope this is a good start. (Am I trying to
> convince people, or trying to generate something for the use case
> document?)
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>